ciberido:ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"? If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house. This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange. Its counter productive and at the end of the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR? Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

Somacandra:FloydA: Two people see something that they don't completely understand. The atheist will usually say "I don't know," and if s/he is motivated to do so, will go on to try to find an explanation. The theist will usually say "must be God" and cease all further speculation==

"As in the other sciences, astronomers in the Muslim lands built upon and greatly expanded earlier traditions. At the House of Knowledge founded in Baghdad by the Abbasid caliph Mamun, scientists translated many texts from Sanskrit, Pahlavi or Old Persian, Greek and Syriac into Arabic, notably the great Sanskrit astronomical tables and Ptolemy's astronomical treatise, the Almagest. Muslim astronomers accepted the geometrical structure of the universe expounded by Ptolemy, in which the earth rests motionless near the center of a series of eight spheres, which encompass it, but then faced the problem of reconciling the theoretical model with Aristotelian physics and physical realities derived from observation. Some of the most impressive efforts to modify Ptolemaic theory were made at the observatory founded by Nasir al-Din Tusi in 1257 at Maragha in northwestern Iran and continued by his successors at Tabriz and Damascus. With the assistance of Chinese colleagues, Muslim astronomers worked out planetary models that depended solely on combinations of uniform circular motions. The astronomical tables compiled at Maragha served as a model for later Muslim astronomical efforts. The most famous imitator was the observatory founded in 1420 by the Timurid prince Ulughbeg at Samarkand in Central Asia, where the astronomer Ghiyath al-Din Jamshid al-Kashi worked out his own set of astronomical tables, with sections on diverse computations and eras, the knowledge of time, the course of the stars, and the position of the fixed stars. Essentially Ptolemaic, these tables have improved parameters and structure as well as additional material on the Chinese Uighur-calendar. They were widely admired and translated e ...

Were these advances made because of religion, or in spite of religion? Was every researcher and/or scientist that made an advance in human knowledge devout in their faith, or were they Muslim/Christian/Jewish/Whatever in name only?

Is there a single faith that embraces the scientific method? Is there any sacred writing that instructs the faithful to alter their beliefs in light of new and better evidence that contradicts the sacred writing?

Somacandra:thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.

Being an "atheist" has no purpose by definition. Modern Western Atheism has no content--its a concept entirely founded on negating a complete strawman of a Protestant concept of religion. If instead you're going to talk about Humanism or an actual ethos of some kind, then social and ethical organizations have long been part of this tradition in Europe and the United States. Atheism does not mean non-religious: many Buddhists and Jains are 'atheists' but are nonetheless quite religious people.

BumpInTheNight:ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"? If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house. This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange. Its counter productive and at the end of the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR? Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

omeganuepsilon:clowncar on fire: Fundies and atheists are not a conflict that needs resolution

What sheltered world do you live in?

Fundies attempt to pass, or grasp to, laws that are in place only because of religion.(gay marriage, women's rights, etc) Fundies can and do abuse power, as per the Polk Under Prayer group.Workplaces that will fire people who are gay/women, etc, do so more or less at the instruction of religion.

You don't see any of that as a problem, or are you just ignorant as to those things happening with an alarming regularity?

Laws regardings gays and women actually exist in every society, regardless of beliefs. Can you believe that at one time fundies were actually out there trying to protect women from the evils that society was inflicting upon them (abuse, homeless, prostitution), thaough admittantly, I don't believe just a short 50 years ago there were too many advocates for homosexuality- fundie or otherwise.

Fundies abuse power *chuckles* only because they have a monopoly in that department.

Workplaces fire women for a variety reasons- not just because jesus told them to do so. Try not to tie in sexism with religion though. Gays get fired for similar reasons. Anectadote time. I work in a faith based hospital and we have many gay employees there- some who have been there longer than the 15 years I have been employed. We're faith based and they are still employed- go figure , huh. Gays who get fired either suck at what they do or become such a nuisance with their gayness that they begin to make others around them uncomfortable is gets them fired.

Fortunately, we have a group of intrepid individuals who are willing to take up the cause and devote an equal amount of time and effort countering every belief the fundies hold.

Here we were at an atheistic church service being delivered evidences of both God's existence (the improbability of asymmetry at the Big Bang) and the Bible's trustworthiness (the fact that God's first creative act was light).

It was at this point that it became too obnoxious to tolerate. He already did the wrong thing by taking up two seats in a packed place. How would he feel if atheists went to his church and kept part of its real congregation from having a seat? What a jerk.

gimmegimme:BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"? If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house. This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange. Its counter productive and at the end of the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR? Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

People who stick their noses into other people's business and pushing their own world view upon others. Its one thing to celebrate your decision to be completely self-responsible and all that, its quite another to brow beat others in an attempt to get them to convert to your point of view. Then as I mentioned before its just kind of petty to primary identify yourself as 'not religion' as opposed to say 'free thinking'.

I don't care about religion myself and never felt a strong pull towards any of them but I'd sooner distance myself from a zealously religious person then actively challenge their core beliefs at every turn. Again, things would probably be different if Canada has the same problems with fundamentalists like the states and the middle east do.

Somacandra:Modern Western Atheism has no content--its a concept entirely founded on negating a complete strawman of a Protestant concept of religion.

1) You scolded someone else in this thread for a blindingly stupid generalization... then you say this.

2) "Atheism" as I experience it has nothing to do with negating any concept of religion whatsoever. Rather, it is the lack of belief in any god, gods, or the supernatural. Though the last isn't necessary to the concept of atheism. It just overlaps with it quite a lot.

3) What may have confused you, professor, is that atheists like myself frequently find ourselves arguing with obnoxious evangelists, usually Protestant, presenting us with a very real concept of Christian religion that 1) corresponds strongly with what common English translations of the Bible say in plain words, and 2) you probably don't care for because you feel, rightly or wrongly, that the many who practice it reflect poorly on you and what you regard as your more nuanced beliefs.

I do not speak to the question of whether reading common English translations of the Bible, and taking them literally is a sound epistemological approach to discovering religious truth, even within a Christian framework. I do say that it is a very real approach, and much as you'd like to pretend otherwise, the main approach among laypersons out here in red America. Neither do I speak to the question of whether adherents to this strain of Christianity in fact reflect poorly on sophisticates like yourself, other than to say that you yourself seem influenced by some stereotype of atheism arising from your interactions with some few of them.

BumpInTheNight:ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"? If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house. This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange. Its counter productive and at the end of the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR? Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

So it's 'militant' to want to hang out with a bunch if like minded people in the search for community our modern world is sadly lacking? Interesting.

Would they still be 'militant' if they didn't use the word 'church'? I assume they used that word to convey the point that their get together was meant to engender the spirt of togetherness the church does for it's adherents. Not as a means of proselytization of the 'atheist faith'.

gimmegimme:BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"? If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house. This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange. Its counter productive and at the end of the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR? Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

1) What is a "militant atheist"?

A person who not only believes but must make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways

2) How is the above "just as bad"? Re-read all posts in this thread. Take the time to keep count of those who defend the fundies and the nature of their responses versus those who oppose the fundies. Come to your own conclusions.

People who stick their noses into other people's business and pushing their own world view upon others. Its one thing to celebrate your decision to be completely self-responsible and all that, its quite another to brow beat others in an attempt to get them to convert to your point of view. Then as I mentioned before its just kind of petty to primary identify yourself as 'not religion' as opposed to say 'free thinking'.

I don't care about religion myself and never felt a strong pull towards any of them but I'd sooner distance myself from a zealously religious person then actively challenge their core beliefs at every turn. Again, things would probably be different if Canada has the same problems with fundamentalists like the states and the middle east do.

Do you realize, by your own definition, you are a "militant atheist"? You have entered a public forum and are indeed "browbeating" others to agree with your point of view through the use of inflammatory rhetoric. Why not do as you urge others and not "stick your nose into the business of others?"

Many atheists not only do not accept the existence of a theistic god (I know that is all atheist means) but actually have negative views towards organized religion.

Using the word church implies a religious structure which many of us would like to see go away.

While some people see a church as an example of unity, those of us who are not fans of religion see it as a source of division. While an atheist temple may be one we are welcome in and agree with, we would like to be free of temples. At least I would.

On a more practical level establishing an "atheist church" implies we need a church and unified moral code and defined unified structure that we are somehow lacking. Atheists don't need to send that message. It diminishes us all.

it seems like he just went there to point and laugh at how wrong the people there were, not to actually think or see the other side.

Yep.

Two people see something that they don't completely understand. The atheist will usually say "I don't know," and if s/he is motivated to do so, will go on to try to find an explanation. The theist will usually say "must be God" and cease all further speculation, because s/he has already come to an answer that satisfies him/her.

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think. Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time. Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.

clowncar on fire:gimmegimme: BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"? If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house. This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange. Its counter productive and at the end of the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR? Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

1) What is a "militant atheist"? A person who not only believes but must make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways

2) How is the above "just as bad"? Re-read all posts in this thread. Take the time to keep count of those who defend the fundies and the nature of their responses versus those who oppose the fundies. Come to your own conclusions.

How, exactly, does a "militant atheist" "make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways" and why/how is this method unacceptable?

give me doughnuts:Was every researcher and/or scientist that made an advance in human knowledge devout in their faith, or were they Muslim/Christian/Jewish/Whatever in name only?

Isaac Newton is the one of best examples of what you suggest, he wrote more on religion than he did on natural science. Although he has in recent years found to be rather heterodox, his view on gravity provides insight into his position "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

Jesus you're a sensitive lot ;) Yes I think its weird that a particular group of atheists decided to call their club house a church, yes I think its counter productive to decide you need to write down 'atheist' in the slot for 'religion' on your life score card rather then just leave it blank. I think seeking out echo chambers of 'anti-religion' is just a silly notion, its a sign of insecurity to need to cluster over something you claim doesn't need to exist. Now, these are my opinions and this is a discussion about the topic, beyond this discussion I really don't bring this topic up and that's why I'm not a militant or let's called it 'recruiting' atheist, I'm just someone who at the moment is bored but in general has no time to waste on bullshiat like religions or agonize that some people actually take them seriously.

ph0rk:nerftaig: Many atheists not only do not accept the existence of a theistic god (I know that is all atheist means) but actually have negative views towards organized religion.

Two different concepts - not necessarily comorbid.

A certain type of devout theist will hold negative views about believers in other faiths, and others that are nominally of the same faith as the devout theist will not hold those negative views.

Theism/Atheism - belief, or not

Other people suck/You do what you want - Dick, or not.

My objection is not inherently an atheists position I understand that. I am using an argument that even if you want to have a church you shouldn't because it somehow diminishes atheists as a whole, and the movement of the world towards reason. Im not really a fan of treating atheists as a fringe group that needs to be protected anyway.

I think my argument would be sacrifice what you think is right for what I think is the good of the world. That is an unreasonable thing for me to ask.

So I'm willing to grant Im probably in the wrong here, but its how I feel.

BumpInTheNight:Jesus you're a sensitive lot ;) Yes I think its weird that a particular group of atheists decided to call their club house a church, yes I think its counter productive to decide you need to write down 'atheist' in the slot for 'religion' on your life score card rather then just leave it blank. I think seeking out echo chambers of 'anti-religion' is just a silly notion, its a sign of insecurity to need to cluster over something you claim doesn't need to exist. Now, these are my opinions and this is a discussion about the topic, beyond this discussion I really don't bring this topic up and that's why I'm not a militant or let's called it 'recruiting' atheist, I'm just someone who at the moment is bored but in general has no time to waste on bullshiat like religions or agonize that some people actually take them seriously.

There are fairly well documented psychological and health benefits associated with religious participation. A popular theory holds that the benefits derive from the sense of belonging to a special community. There is no good reason atheists shouldn't seek to enjoy these benefits in a non-religious way. And if they want to call their special community a "church" because it fills the same role in their lives that other peoples' religion fulfills in theirs, that's fine too. At least to sensible people.

gimmegimme:clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"? If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house. This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange. Its counter productive and at the end of the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR? Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

1) What is a "militant atheist"? A person who not only believes but must make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways

2) How is the above "just as bad"? Re-read all posts in this thread. Take the time to keep count of those who defend the fundies and the nature of their responses versus those who oppose the fundies. Come to your own conclusions.

How, exactly, does a "militant atheist" "make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways" and why/how is this method unacceptable?

The "method " is the usual: browbeat, troll, bully, etc. In the framework of the cyber community, I would say the bravery of being out of range would be considered acceptable.

I, for example, am an atheist in regards to the existance of the Easter Bunny. My disbelief in The Bunny is the end game. In your venacular- whatever. Why would I even bother to even debate about its existance as I know it not to exist? As a true theist, with no doubt in my heart, I w ould not even see the oint of trying to expend my efforts to debunk that which is not debunkable.

A true theist would not see the need to engage in such discourse as to whether God exists or not, but rather be comfortable in the belief in non-existance.

Militant theists are an entirely different bird. There appears to be an internal need, not unlike that of a bully, to defend a core belief to which the holder may himself have doubts. In the case of theism, a need to express the non-existance of a diety and receive confirmation thereof.

give me doughnuts:Is there a single faith that embraces the scientific method? Is there any sacred writing that instructs the faithful to alter their beliefs in light of new and better evidence that contradicts the sacred writing?

"If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

nerftaig:ph0rk: nerftaig: Many atheists not only do not accept the existence of a theistic god (I know that is all atheist means) but actually have negative views towards organized religion.

Two different concepts - not necessarily comorbid.

A certain type of devout theist will hold negative views about believers in other faiths, and others that are nominally of the same faith as the devout theist will not hold those negative views.

Theism/Atheism - belief, or not

Other people suck/You do what you want - Dick, or not.

My objection is not inherently an atheists position I understand that. I am using an argument that even if you want to have a church you shouldn't because it somehow diminishes atheists as a whole, and the movement of the world towards reason. Im not really a fan of treating atheists as a fringe group that needs to be protected anyway.

I think my argument would be sacrifice what you think is right for what I think is the good of the world. That is an unreasonable thing for me to ask.

So I'm willing to grant Im probably in the wrong here, but its how I feel.

I agree with you, in principle. But I think the problem is that atheists, like religionists, like most of humanity, feels the need to belong to something bigger then itself to feel a sense if community, and that they aren't alone.

The problem being this role has been filled by religion for so long, it's hard to divorce the idea from result. I think they're using the word 'church' or 'temple' to show they're a community of like minded individuals who get together and do the sorts if things that they feel they're missing.

mittromneysdog:BumpInTheNight: Jesus you're a sensitive lot ;) Yes I think its weird that a particular group of atheists decided to call their club house a church, yes I think its counter productive to decide you need to write down 'atheist' in the slot for 'religion' on your life score card rather then just leave it blank. I think seeking out echo chambers of 'anti-religion' is just a silly notion, its a sign of insecurity to need to cluster over something you claim doesn't need to exist. Now, these are my opinions and this is a discussion about the topic, beyond this discussion I really don't bring this topic up and that's why I'm not a militant or let's called it 'recruiting' atheist, I'm just someone who at the moment is bored but in general has no time to waste on bullshiat like religions or agonize that some people actually take them seriously.

There are fairly well documented psychological and health benefits associated with religious participation. A popular theory holds that the benefits derive from the sense of belonging to a special community. There is no good reason atheists shouldn't seek to enjoy these benefits in a non-religious way. And if they want to call their special community a "church" because it fills the same role in their lives that other peoples' religion fulfills in theirs, that's fine too. At least to sensible people.

Thank you! I've been saying this is in this thread over and over. But no one seems to want to hear it.

mittromneysdog:BumpInTheNight: Jesus you're a sensitive lot ;) Yes I think its weird that a particular group of atheists decided to call their club house a church, yes I think its counter productive to decide you need to write down 'atheist' in the slot for 'religion' on your life score card rather then just leave it blank. I think seeking out echo chambers of 'anti-religion' is just a silly notion, its a sign of insecurity to need to cluster over something you claim doesn't need to exist. Now, these are my opinions and this is a discussion about the topic, beyond this discussion I really don't bring this topic up and that's why I'm not a militant or let's called it 'recruiting' atheist, I'm just someone who at the moment is bored but in general has no time to waste on bullshiat like religions or agonize that some people actually take them seriously.

There are fairly well documented psychological and health benefits associated with religious participation. A popular theory holds that the benefits derive from the sense of belonging to a special community. There is no good reason atheists shouldn't seek to enjoy these benefits in a non-religious way. And if they want to call their special community a "church" because it fills the same role in their lives that other peoples' religion fulfills in theirs, that's fine too. At least to sensible people.

All good, hell I'm part of a couple special communities myself, work, a few hobbies, things like that. No need to join a community bent on a dismantling another one though, that's again the line between militant and existent, to me. Oh and none of my hobbies require a club house who's name is directly hijacked from something the in which the hobby's goal is to actively reject. I think its ironic they called their building a church, I think Letrolle is right when it comes to these people: At this point for those people being atheist is their religion.

Again, I point to the Unitarian Universalists. The minister before Victoria Safford took over at the Unitarian Society in Northampton was very much an atheist; so much so, that there was some push back from the congregation when she began services for being too theist in her approach. The language of faith, from many faith traditions, helps us to understand how those disparate faith traditions all approach things from slightly different perspectives, but to common goals, and with lessons that we can all learn from. Kindness. Charity. Forgiveness. Be you Buddhist, pagan, Jewish, Lutheran, Baptist, Hindu, Jain, Catholic, Muslim or Methodist, we can all learn from one another. Common values, common drives, desires, common needs, they transcend faith traditions, and even atheists can find important lessons in the disparate teachings, or even in the teachings of one tradition alone. Deeds over creeds tends to drive the UUs. Where you find the inspiration, that tends to come from one's own personal experiences. Ultimately, those experiences drive us, but we can find common ground in our actions. The language of faith, the lessons, those don't have to drive you to exclusivity that YOU are the only one who knows the back door to the Great and Secret Show.

The language of faith, the lessons contained, they can be gleaned without damning all those around you. Even Buddhists differ wildly in their interpretations of the Eightfold Path. Atheists are welcome in a UU community, because they bring their own experiences to the table, and they are just as valid as those of folks with theistic bends. Openness isn't a trait for only believers or unbelievers. Openness and willingness to listen, those are traits to be inculcated and nurtured. UUs are fantastic in their arguments amongst one another, and still within the bounds of looking to help each other define their own thoughts and processes. In an environment that is safe, and nurturing, where the questions are supposed to be asked of one another.